The Internet is quick to extract political implications from album covers or lyrics — but how useful is this commentary?

By GEETIKA MAHAJAN — giamahajan@ucdavis.edu

There are more than enough reasons for the general public to dislike any celebrity. Like the rest of us, they are flawed people. But an endless well of money, power and attention has a tendency to amplify a universal, intrinsic predisposition to self-centeredness and narcissism. It’s hard to like someone when it feels like their whole life is being shoved into your face for the sole purpose of preserving their popularity, success and wealth. 

That being said, there’s been a (very annoying) trend in recent discussions about celebrities, both on the Internet and outside of it. People seem to conflate their opinions of public figures with their own moral superiority; looking for reasons to justify their prejudice as something beyond simply not liking someone’s public persona. Unfortunately for everybody on the hate train for Taylor Swift, Sabrina Carpenter or Charli xcx (or whichever other famous woman the Internet has unanimously agreed that they’ve had enough of), collective acceptance of a sentiment doesn’t make it a fact.

Saying you dislike Taylor Swift because she’s a billionaire isn’t a valid critique if you’re not saying anything about Rihanna or Beyonce or Jay-Z, all three of which are Swift’s peers net-worth wise. Hating on Sabrina Carpenter because she “caters to the male gaze” is like criticizing Ford for catering to people who like to go off-roading or saying that Le Creuset promotes tradwifery. Like any other venture that generates revenue, celebrities are a brand. Criticizing them for how they present themselves is irrelevant; they do it because there’s a market that buys into this persona.

Taylor Swift’s net worth or Sabrina Carpenter’s album cover (both of which have been viciously torn apart by people online) aren’t reflections of them as individuals; they are consequences of how successful they are in catering to the demands of their audience. The self-righteous outrage over Carpenter’s “Man’s Best Friend” album cover being anti-feminist or how Swift isn’t utilizing her enormous wealth for one thing or another are symptoms of the characters they play to maintain their audience. Political critiques of celebrities are just as flimsy as those personas themselves — when you criticize a popstar you aren’t placing blame on a real person, you’re essentially chastising a facade.

Yet, there is a sociopolitical aspect to these hate trains. Accusing a celebrity of being the embodiment of capitalism or misogyny is less indicative of personal morality and more representative of how susceptible you are to mob mentality — you’re just jumping on the bandwagon. At the end of the day, expecting popstars to double time as political commentators is a very specific kind of brainrot that comes from spending all your time in pseudo-intellectual spaces online and zero time consuming or reading anything of actual intellect or substance. As long as Chris Brown is still selling out arenas, your criticisms of female celebrities are hollow.

This is not to say that celebrities need protection or require defending, but there are more useful and more valid political critiques to make when you criticize a larger industry or trend. If you want to hate on a singular person because you’ve cherry-picked facts about their life to fit a personal narrative about them, that’s fine — but keep your discourse on stan Twitter. Behaving as if criticisms of an album cover or lyric does the same work as criticizing a politician or bill is ultimately unproductive. Pop culture can be political, but it isn’t praxis — if you want to talk about politics, read the news, not your Twitter feed.   

Written by: Geetika Mahajan — giamahajan@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Growing more fruit trees could alleviate many common college stressors

By ANJALI IYER — amiyer@ucdavis.edu

After the gloom of Davis winters, many students earnestly await the arrival of spring quarter, as the change in seasons provides a much-needed relief from the misery of 5 p.m. sunsets. Unfortunately, the rustle of a gentle spring breeze is often accompanied by an unwelcome allergen — pollen. And so begins the cacophony of sneezes that inevitably interrupt your flow of thought during the silence of an exam or a particularly dire cram session in the library. The sounds of sniffles echo throughout lecture halls as students engage in a months-long battle against a skyrocketing pollen count. The main culprit of this nasal assault? Wind-pollinated trees.

The campus is home to a variety of oak, elm, cedar and mulberry trees — all notorious producers of airborne pollen, according to the UC Davis public tree database. It would be ludicrous to suggest that UC Davis axe these historic existing trees, so instead, I offer a proposal: focus on planting species that have even more to offer the community. I’m suggesting that UC Davis plant more insect-pollinated fruit trees. Aside from the hypoallergenic benefits, planting fruit trees would provide a free source of food for the community for seasons to come. 

On a college student’s budget, increasingly expensive grocery prices can force Davis residents to compromise on the quality or quantity of produce they can buy. Access to nutritious food should be considered an inalienable right, but unfortunately, food instability is a rampant issue for half of all California college students. 

An alternative to shopping at traditional grocery stores is the Davis Farmers Market, which hosts a range of vendors selling locally grown produce. However, this can be even more expensive than chain grocers like Trader Joe’s, and isn’t a sustainable solution for students working with a minimum wage budget.

One could argue that student organizations, like the Edible Gardens on campus, negate the need to plant fruit trees. The Edible Gardens project is a student-led initiative that turns existing spaces on campus into sustainable farms. They equip students with the skills needed to access the produce growing in these gardens and provide volunteer and employment opportunities for the community. These gardens already aim to promote student access to sustainable agricultural practices. However, I say that these projects only prove that UC Davis has the capacity to implement more food equity initiatives. After all, why not?

Fruit trees, especially native species, are a renewable source of food already adept to California’s harsh climate. Once established, native trees require much less upkeep compared to introduced crops in a cultivated garden, thereby diminishing the need for year-round expenditure. The trees could be planted around first-year residence halls, in the Arboretum or dotted around campus. Before the trees are ready to bear fruit, planting and caring for saplings could be used in botany courses as general education units. For students majoring in plant-related fields, the fruit trees could be used in research projects. If you’re looking for a multifaceted, long-term and sustainable way to promote access to fresh fruit, this is the best solution.

Life as a college student is a balancing act of keeping up with school, often whilst working a job and somehow finding a way to fit a social life into the mix. Exhaustion and burnout are only worsened by sickness, which is brought on by the abrupt change in seasons. Even something as seemingly small as access to free produce could be an effective way to alleviate some of the pressure that comes with being a young person in an increasingly nihilistic world. UC Davis students deserve to be able to take a break from the chaos, get together with some friends and pick some free fruit.

Written by: Anjali Iyer — amiyer@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

In an increasingly online political environment, farmers market stalls provide an opportunity for in-person discussion

By SAGE KAMOCSAY— skamocsay@ucdavis.edu

Picture this: it’s a cheery Saturday morning and you’re strolling through the Davis Farmers Market with your friends for the first time. You’re checking out each of the vendors — some of them are selling produce and herbs, others are displaying delicious baked goods and a few are showcasing their handmade art. 

As you make your way to the back, you find the types of stands begin to change. Instead of local vegetable peddlers, you see battling political demonstrators. A “Yes on 50” tent is to your left, a “No on 50” tent stands to your right. Other stands come into view as well — there’s the Democratic Socialists of America; a group raising awareness for the Israeli hostages; a spokesperson from the Real Organic Project, and of course, the ever-present flat earth advocate tucked away in the back. All of them are vying for your support and attention, one way or another. 

You have reached the political corner of the Davis Farmers Market: It should not be overlooked.

In the era of the Internet, exchanging ideas face-to-face is becoming increasingly rare. The slow death of in-person discourse is a sad sight to behold, and with it comes the demise of intercommunity political debate. This loss is dire, considering this kind of discussion is exactly what is necessary to prevent echo chambers. At the Davis Farmers Market, a broad spectrum of political thought is showcased and advocated for; it’s a sampler platter of the ideas of the population. 

Here, there is a notion of searching for a realistic solution. Online, on the other hand, insular communities block out any undesirable ideas, however reasonable they may be. Instead, increasingly extreme viewpoints are touted as gospel. Caricatures of political ideologies become more mainstream as certain communities gain prominence — look no further than the rise of Nazi sentiment after Elon Musk’s X takeover. In other words, discussing politics online is an avenue for ensuring one’s conversations are with those who already agree with them. Internet forums give people the opportunity to interact without any opposition and only with those who validate and reassure the beliefs they already hold, whereas talking in person is a way to have true discourse.

Political communities like the Davis Farmers Market also have a profound effect on those who choose to participate in them. Engaging in conversation over one’s political ideas encourages contemplation and thought-out explanations from all sides. This dynamic ensures the nuances of an idea are clearer and easier to see. Understanding is made possible — basic principles and ideals can be explored and questioned within even just a few minutes.

The circulation of information online is the opposite. True education is abandoned in favor of snappy, concise posts that lack context and evidence. In some ways, this is the viewer’s fault. Most will scroll past almost every political post they see without giving it a second thought — unless the post is reductive and hyperbolic. As a result, nuanced ideas lose their depth in favor of flashy content aimed at clicks or views.

Moreover, conversations at the market are memorable. The conflict involved in questioning one’s beliefs and sense of truth sticks with almost everyone who has experienced it. Because of that power, the stands at the farmers market have the capacity to actually change minds in a way that lasts. Especially in contrast with the barrage of sensationalized political social media posts that are difficult to retain, an in-depth conversation like the ones prompted by advocates at the market are actually impactful. One method of advocacy forces introspection through direct conversation, while the other is a momentary blip on a phone screen. One is remembered, the other forgotten.

With an ever-increasing shift to online, polarization has skyrocketed, as politics become more about headlines and outrage than ever before. To bring back nuance; to bring back cooperation and to bring back humanity, we need to return to in-person methods of political advocacy. Even small political booths at local markets should not be ignored — in fact, they should be actively sought out for their perspectives.

The Davis Farmers Market provides a real place to create positive political change. Different stands provide information and assistance on ballot measures and humanitarian causes. The casual, inviting atmosphere draws shoppers in to have real political conversations. It is an efficient way of changing minds — and lives. The central park market, though it may look like a step into the past, is truly a way forward.

Written by: Sage Kamocsay— skamocsay@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Distrust of cooking oils has become a rallying cry for conservatives

By MILES BARRY — mabarry@ucdavis.edu

In January 2025, a large group of wellness influencers, biohackers and proponents of alternative medicine descended on the Kennedy Center to celebrate Donald Trump’s election with a “seed oil-free” dinner at the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Inaugural Ball. 

In the same month, Western restaurant chains True Food Kitchen and Sweetgreen debuted “new protein-packed, seed oil-free menu items to kick off the new year.” Even the midwest’s Steak n’ Shake have declared their transition away from seed oils, using beef tallow or air fryers to cook their fries instead. 

Here in Davis, Reddit debates have raged about Segundo Dining Hall’s use of seed oils, and the Instagram account for UC Davis’ immensely popular Nutrition 010 class has had to clarify that seed oils have healthy properties, contrary to recent popular belief. Anonymous posters on r/Sacramento inquired about “seed oil free restaurants” in the area, and UC Davis Assistant Professor Selina Wang was even interviewed by The Washington Post in March to debunk myths surrounding these controversial cooking oils. 

Experts seem to agree that seed oils are safe. But, if you’re like me — concerned about your health to a degree that could be considered neurotic — you’ll likely want to examine these claims to satisfy the little voice in the back of your mind wondering: Could the experts be wrong?

A quick scroll through several online alternative health forums reveals that their most vocal members belong to the self-proclaimed “alt-right.” Accounts with names like “Brutal American Adolf” post thoughtful photos of their (admittedly delicious-looking) breakfast and advocate for daily use of aspirin to make your eyes more blue. It’s a strange world of health questions — “your thoughts on alcohol-based mouthwash?” followed by streams of hate-filled hashtags (#MassDeportations #Now).

Between these blatantly racist posts, people on these forums argue back and forth about a plethora of crazy supplements — from methylene blue dye to desiccated thyroid extract. While they frequently disagree, everyone is united against seed oils. I’d argue that, for many people, this constant seed oil fearmongering is the first step in a sequence that begins with mainstream health podcasts and ends at cesspool groups filled with anti-vaccine neo-Nazis. In other words, anti-seed oil messaging has become a method of right-wing radicalization.

At least two guests on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” the most popular podcast in the United States, have made claims about the harms of seed oils. Andrew Huberman, a podcaster and neuroscientist who boasts 7 million subscribers on YouTube, also urges caution about seed oils. Rogan and Huberman are politically moderate, but their distrust of these cooking oils can plant seeds of doubt: “If the experts — Big Pharma, Big Ag and academia — are secretly poisoning Americans in pursuit of profit, what else are they hiding?” 

This question will inevitably lead some listeners further down the rabbit hole. It’s all too easy to begin researching alternative medicine practitioners who make the same claims about seed oils — and also claim that COVID-19 vaccines are evil. The most popular of these figures is Ray Peat, a University of Oregon Ph.D. holder who wrote prolifically about alternative nutrition practices until his death in 2022. His dietary recommendations are easy to follow: He recommends avoiding seed oils, coffee with sugar, ice cream and daily consumption of carrot salads. Dr. Peat was one of the first nutritionists to demonize seed oils and he is beloved in these forums; people tag photos of their meals that align with his recommendations “#peaty.” Peat was also a conspiracy theorist. He believed that COVID-19 was nothing more than “a standard cold and flu season,” and that the “data doesn’t show any excess deaths.” 

The connection between seed oils and Peat-aligned, right-wing, conspiratorial views may seem baffling at first. “Alternative nutrition” tends to conjure images of granola-loving, organic-only liberal hippies, but the link reveals itself when these novel diets and extreme supplement regimens become extensions of eugenic logic.

In the early 20th century, prominent eugenicists were obsessed with nutrition. John Harvey Kellogg, co-founder of the Kellogg’s empire, invented corn flakes as part of his campaign against what he called “race degeneracy.” For these men, dietary purity was inseparable from racial purity. Likewise, contemporary Peat-inspired wellness culture frames human betterment as a kind of purification — cleansing the body of toxins and cleansing the nation of “undesirables.”

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “if you can pinpoint where your food was grown and produced, you can make more informed decisions to maximize quality, freshness, and nutritional value.” By the same logic, we should consider where our information comes from when evaluating non-mainstream nutritional claims like the crusade against seed oils. What begins as a harmless search for healthier eating can, for some, open the door to misinformation and extremism.

Written by: Miles Barry — mabarry@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

I’m over it

By SABRINA FIGUEROA — sfigueroaavila@ucdavis.edu

Ah yes, Davis: the self-proclaimed bicycle capital of America. It’s also the capital of constantly almost getting run over. 

One thing I love about Davis is that it’s one of the most walkable cities I’ve ever been to, which adds to its charm. Walking under colorful fall trees with music blasting in your headphones and the warmth of a Peet’s coffee cup in your hand is very peaceful, until you try crossing a four-way intersection. Suddenly, people forget how to read road signs: especially the bikers.

While I despise Davis’ bike culture due to its ignorance of traffic rules, (possibly my most controversial opinion yet), it doesn’t excuse the atrocious behavior of pedestrians and drivers I have seen, either. Even though we all make mistakes and run late sometimes, that doesn’t mean we can stop considering our safety and the safety of the people around us. So, out of my pure frustration with my recent pedestrian experiences, here is a guide on how to navigate the chaos of the Davis roads:

• Stop at stop signs, yield when necessary. This might be a given, and perhaps the most obvious rule of the road. However, the amount of times I’ve seen a biker almost get run over by a car or other bikers because they don’t stop or yield — then watching them proceed to get angry — warrants this reminder.
• Communicate: Eye contact, hand signals and mouthing words are all useful ways of communicating if you’re giving up your right-of-way, wanting to make a turn or thanking someone. Clarity comes from communicating, especially on the road.
• Put your phone away and check to see if bikes or cars are coming before crossing the street. Another very obvious one, but there’s so many UC Davis students out there who cross the street with their full attention on their phones.
• If you aren’t confident that you can make it across the street before a bike or car comes, just wait. No one is rushing you to cross, you can take your time. Don’t end up like the chicken who crossed the road (squished).
• Don’t speed up to make pedestrians walk faster (I’m talking to you, electric scooter people). It’s mean, and one day someone won’t care or won’t see and it’ll be a bad day for both of you when you crash. 
• Slow down in general (again this is more aimed toward scooter people). Is there ever a reason for someone to be going 30mph on a tiny scooter? At least it makes people giggle.
• Get a light. This is for both pedestrians and bikers who travel at night. Davis is not a well-lit city and you are not visible in the dark — wearing a light or reflective clothing can save your life.
• Use your blinkers and learn your hand signals. Please.

This small town still has a beautiful sense of community and kind people — and it’s time we extend that to the road. While nothing about this guide is novel, for a town full of college kids at a rigorous university, we lack common sense when it comes to safely navigating the road. Some of us study rocket science, yet our confusion lies with traffic rules.

Written by: Sabrina Figueroa — sfigueroaavila@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.